<ericfurman <at> fastmail.net> writes: > > > > To ease his work, and to let others in our group to step in in his > > efforts, he committet it to our work area which we call cvs. > > A CVS is not by any stretch of the imagination a public repository > of code for anyone to use.
Exactly. > So no code was released hence no license violation. It doesn't take a genius. Not sure what you mean by "released" (tagged? packaged? announced?) but committing code to public CVS definitely equates to distribution. This is how the Linux devels noticed the problem, this is how I got the code, this is how anyone can *still* grab that code from CVS history. There's no way in hell one can claim this is not distribution. If you still believe otherwise, try committing your legally purchased MP3 collection to public CVS and see what happens ;) Copying and distribution of copyrighted materials is regulated by copyright law, so yes, you do need a valid license to commit somebody else' code to public CVS. > > > > > The linux folks tooks this as the grounds to ride attacks agains Marcus, > > claiming license violations. You call Buesch's neutral email an attack?! You have got to be kidding, he's merely presenting the facts. > > > > Marcus, devoting his spare time to OpenBSD decided that this is > > kindergarten and best left to the Linux amateurs and deleted his driver > > from the OpenBSD cvs tree. > > > > Now everyone has won, the Linux people, Broadcom and the OpenBSD users. > > > > Thank you, Linux BCW developers! > > > > <AntiLinuxRant> > Forget it. I was annoyed by the "GPL" Nazis and was going to write > a long diatribe, but what's the point. I would either be preaching to > the choir or just ignored as another one of those people who "just > don't get it". > </AntiLinuxRant> You people need to get your heads out of your arses and realize this has absolutely nothing to do with Linux & GPL. Code under *any* license cannot be stripped of copyright attribution and distributed as your own. If the original driver was licensed under BSD, what Marcus did would still be a copyright *and* license violation. - jd
